I've had it a few times where people who disagreed with something I wrote or did start their statement with "Surely you understand that [you shouldn't do what you did]". No, surely I don't, that's the reason we have this disagreement in the first place.
> We believe you will agree that it is undesirable for our companies to make simultaneous use of "the real thing" in connection with our respective products.
I read that like Coke thought the publisher didn't necessarily realize there was a dual usage of the slogan, and that once they did they would immediately agree with the only obvious conclusion which is that it's bad for business. And if the publisher did previously realize, this is simply pointing out that they were acting in bad faith with respect to Coke and stupidly with respect to themselves.
And of course the publisher's reply was that they weren't competing in the same market and therefore there was no confusion over the slogan. Not sure if it was a trademark, but that's how trademark law works today. In fact Coke is required to defend its trademarks.
In summary, someone who does something you don't like doesn't necessarily do so because they consciously disagree with your position. Hanlon's razor, more or less.
I agree that depending on the circumstances, meta-language about the argument being had is a kind of bullying - "Let's be reasonable about this." - but it also hints as to the weakness of the bully's position.
There are ways to combat it, one of which is to mirror their language back at them. Another is simply to be completely non-reactive emotionally and completely non-compliant.
I believe you will agree that this is just another way of saying, "I believe you will agree that..."
Also I'm confused about the disagreement between your first sentence and your second one. I think you're saying that it's effective but that you loathe it nevertheless.